BMAA/LAA merger talks

BJ · Post by BJ » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:27 am

Absorb? Is that what you think it is all about??

Lol

As for "who is at the helm" as in all matters the members decide.. its the natural way of things. You dont agree?

Bob F · Post by **Bob F** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:16 pm

BJ,

I feel the word "absorb" is one neither association wish to hear. A merger between us should be for the common good, joining together as equals to form a new, stronger entity.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.

Bob

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:19 pm

I can understand the reticence of merging two proud and very different organisations who are products of very different histories. I don't know all the issues, whether temporary or long term, that would cause things to stall. I do feel though that a combined force would be so much stronger than each individual body or even the sum of the two. We would have massive lobbying power and with the different perspectives / styles / member types of both organisations ( a heady mixture of mavericks and conservatives ) - wow - that would be a potent force.

Maybe a new combined umbrella organisation with the two former organisations as 'channels' (to coin a marketing phrase!) is the answer. Heathy creative tensions can still exist within, to drive the organisation forward but the external face would be a formidable body with huge representation.

Then just see how things evolve over time rather than trying to go big bang and risk making big errors.

We are all aviators and we really ought to be friends. United we stand.....

Happy Christmas to BMAA & LAA members

jangiolini · Post by **jangiolini** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:45 pm

Here Here! I second that its about time we got together and combined our forces, resources and take on the bureaucrats! We all have one common goal and that's to take to the sky safely but with the minimum of expense and red tape!

BJ · Post by BJ » Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:41 am

Well as not one post has been "no" to further merger negotiations, from the membership.

The EC have yet to comment. I am sure they will soon - Mr. Brady, for one, I thought would respond as his last post on this matter, citing GSTYX as the only block, no longer reflects the situation.

JonKil · Post by **JonKil** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:31 am

BJ wrote: The EC have yet to comment. I am sure they will soon - Mr. Brady, for one, I thought would respond as his last post on this matter, citing GSTYX as the only block, no longer reflects the situation.

John, give it a rest, you are making the forum sound like an echo

I am sure a response will come in due time.
Merry Xmas and a happy new year to you, and lets see what 09 brings regarding this matter, and hopefully something good will come of it all..

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:57 am

BJ / John .....and some do not know they can !!

Cool icons, Jon !!!

Jim Gale · Post by **Jim Gale** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:55 pm

Just a little bit of info. John Brady has been on Christmas leave abroad with his family since the 14th Dec and wont be back until the New Year.
Regards and Seasons Greetings to you all.
Here's to 2009 being the year of harmonisation!
Jim.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:52 pm

Yes and I expect John could do with a break after all his hard work persuading CAA to allow us to fly in straight lines at last. A joint benefit to BMAA and LAA permit holders I might add.

Steve

BJ · Post by BJ » Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:58 pm

It is a shame that the drawbridge was lifted do you all agree? We would be a few months closer to an end product without any of the bad feeling created by the manner in which it was handled.

As for a structure. I tables a suggestion ages ago. The suggestion was, and I used Sywell just as an example.. as follows..

A Perfect Aviation Society

At Sywell we buy, not rent, floorspace that will allow all NGB's of all aspects of aviation who want to share the plan. Each association remains as an association but as part of a larger body all based in the same building (and this is key) with a top level management committee/council.

The membership of the top level management committee/council would be elected at the earliest possible moment, certainly within 6 months if not sooner from the membership of all the constituent associations. The chairman of the new association would be elected by the newly elected council/committee.

This leaves the way forward clear for a number of options following this stage - the important thing is that options are open.

The new association MUST be a new one - not a rehash of what has gone before in any way, shape or form. That includes in name.

The echo comment - don't care.. when left to the politicians it all ended up dead in the water. I make no apology for shaking the tree now. G-STYX was cited as being the only reason for the halt. The G-STYX case has ended.

BJ

BJ · Post by BJ » Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:07 pm

Thanks Welshman. That is an excellent example of what I mean and thank you for it.

With regard to the comment by someone that JB was away resting after getting the overflight rules relaxed for microlights you should be aware that yes John Brady was the LAA man behind the request. The evidence to support the request was based on aircraft which were not microlights however. The suggestion or inference was that the microlight safety record was not as good as the others and so LAA made no case that microlights should be included. Although they didn't say they should not. When Geoff Weighell. CEO of the BMAA, looked at the figures that were used and established that microlights were half as likely to have a structural problem as non microlights and made them include it in the final request.

This is another example of how the club system would work to all our benefit.

Best

BJ

NJ673 · Post by **NJ673** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:47 pm

And of course herein lays the answer, a third organization apolitical and with no hidden agendas with regards the certification and approvals process. Neither LAA nor BMAA can truly campaign for across the board [permit aircraft] recreational flyers interests when both associations are in essence responsible to CAA (and in turn DoT) for the certification of their respective fleet.

I believe a 'merger' - call it what you will, is dead in the water for the foreseeable future and it certainly isn’t all LAA doing. What is needed is a completely fresh organization made up of all types of recreational flyers. Along much the same path as the EAA, which is a non political lobbying organization and therefore truly able to represent their members interests. It is also worth noting that no-one is forced to belong to the EAA, members choose to join to support the work that EAA does. Can the same be said for permit aircraft owning BMAA/LAA members?

That’s not to say BMAA/LAA have not or don’t look after member interest, of course they do so, but rather that they cannot fully lobby for all the privileges the memberships may desire. So why would we want a ‘merged’ organization with a resulting monopoly on the core functions of the original two organizations – the construction and operation of permit aircraft [read non CofA] be they microlight or otherwise when currently, at least hypothetically, we have a choice of which organization we subscribe to???

This is not a grass roots Microlight flyer vs. grass roots group A Permit flyer thing at all, we all muddle along reasonably well in actual fact. It is a high level political issue. About the only saving grace is that we are not a third world country equipped with Ak-47's and surplus T 72's with which the politicials would have us use to sort things out with.

All I really want to do is go fly my plane. But.

"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US"

Gordon McDill

Ps. This is my opinion, not nessesarly a LAA EC view.

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:11 pm

On what premise, Gordon, do you base your fundamental argument ?

IMHO it is just because the LAA, BMAA etc. do link the requirements of 'Authority' to the sensibilities of their members that they function best for us.

Can you imagine the LAA Permits 'Co.' working as a sub-set of the CAA alone, talking to a separate unpowered members assoc'n. to whom they have no allegience ?
Red tape and beurocracy with no gain !

Certainly lets's see if closer working on similar aims with others e.g. BMAA can increase our persuasive powers both to the CAA and EASA.

[I would mention in passing, that in previous similar threads we have been told the Royal Aero Club performs the liaison you crave. In the latter case I can't say they have shown up too well, unless it's all a secret old boys' society & we aren't allowed to know what their true results are ! ]

JonKil · Post by **JonKil** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:27 pm

Lads,
given time it will all come good. Simple economics will dictate that fact. We are all hot and bothered about a merger, a takeover, being "absorbed", call it whatever hell you like, things have been said, feathers ruffled in both camps. Whether we believe it or not there is a strong working relationship between both camps at an un-official level anyway, in due course it will all amalgamate and become a single entity with different working groups striving towards a common good.

But for now, chill and go fly, and let tomorrow come along.

Jon